Clinton's losing had NOTHING to do with her having a vagina. And if you really think that your head is shoved so far up into the asshole of imaginary victim-hood you are beyond all hope

I AGREE with you, T.
Tell Sawant and her buddies.

I agree with most of what you're saying, and I enthusiastically voted for her, but don't you think she does have some legitimate weaknesses too that have nothing to do with her gender? At least on the level of a candidate?

@4
No question you are correct.
HRC is a smart plodder with good values but little imagination.
A fine person and would have made good Potus.
But not a Winston Churchill or BHO as a rouser.

The liberal left needs to get it into their heads that the rest of the political spectrum does not think identity politics are the only thing in the world that matters.

@4: Wipe those inconvenient thoughts out of your head, soldier. Hillary was a perfect candidate in every way, and had no negatives. She lost because everyone is evil and hates women, including over half of all women voters. You better get your mind right.

Clinton's neoliberal record isn't a right wing conspiracy theory. Identity politics will never trump economic welfare. You have understood nothing.

No superdelegates for the general election huh. Actually, sadly, there are, in all the states that have fewer citizens per representative.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Census10/F…

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/

I am bummed about the strong-smart-loud thing because that has been my daughter to a T and from preschool throughout grade school it's been a problem. Boys can be flighty loud and damaging but if girl's have energy it's not nice.

sick of people blaming Hilary's loss on misogyny. 53 percent of white women voted for Trump. If that fact hasn't destroyed your argument already, you really are just talking to yourself.

If you look at the raw turnout numbers, it wasn't that people were voting against Hillary, it's that democrats couldn't be bothered to vote for anyone at all.

The raw number of people who voted republican is pretty much exactly the same number as it was four years ago, and the same as it was four years before that, and four years before that. Republican voting is flatlined.

The number of people who vote democrat, on the other hand, is like a roller coaster. And this year, democrats basically sat at home and said, "I'm fine letting everyone else decide who's going to run this country for me."

Democrats weren't necessarily misogynist. They were just pathetic and lazy.

The level of delusion and cluelessness on the Left is starting to frighten.
And actually trish has it 180° wrong.
Being a woman was the only asset hillary had going for her;
a man with her watery thin resume and long list of liabilities and flaws would never have made it past the first few primaries.

this piece was crap the first time it ran and age hasn't made it any better.

"The most qualified presidential candidate ever to run for office...."

I heard that a lot during and after the campaign, and it isn't true.
Hillary Clinton was definitely more qualified than Trump, but how exactly was she the 'most qualified ever'?

If anyone out there actually believes she was the 'most qualified ever, could you please explain what those 'qualifications' were?

And remember, some of the most 'qualified' candidates turned out to be terrible presidents.

I voted for Hillary Clinton because I thought she was the best choice this election, not because I thought she was the most qualified 'ever'.

@13 and other are spot on for this, as Dems we better move on fast or its going to be a long 4 years. Time to realize that a platform based on social issues alone is not going to carry the country. Need to focus on the economy first then get your SJW wins as they come.

OK, fine blame it all on sexism. Nothing to do with Kissinger, neocon foreign policy, the end of welfare as we know it, mass imprisonment, secret health care plan meetings, or Wall Street. It's all sexism.

Sexism existed before the Democratic primary. You all knew about sexism. Everyone knew how Democratic voters felt about Hilary Clinton. Forget about how much Republicans hate her. Her unpopularity with Democrats was a known quantity long before this all started.

And knowing all that, Democrats shoved Hillary down everyone's throats and said you gotta like it. Everyone who, predictably, refused to go along, was scorned.

The result of this was the end of Roe v Wade, and so much more. Why? Why did we risk so much just to make a point that people are wrong to hate Hillary? Great, you've proven that it's all the sexism. Now you get to pat yourselves on the back for being right while abortion clinics close, birth control becomes inaccessible, wage equality moves further out of reach, the list goes on. And there's no plan. No next step.

1. Prove HRC was the victim of sexism

2. Watch rights and freedoms get taken away by a new crop of two or three or four Supreme Court justices who are young enough to cement their rule for decades.

3. ????

Congratulations. I don't get it. Why?

And forget about past mistakes.

The mistake happening right now before our eyes is a refusal to make the changes we need. Why do you keep defending the decision to hand the nomination to Hillary Clinton without a real primary? The Democratic Party elite did this. The point of making clear what a mistake they made is to keep them from repeating this, or better yet replace them all with leaders who have enough sense of the voters to nominate a candidate who will actually win. Not a moral victory, a real one. The kind of real victory that keeps funding for Planned Parenthood and prevents gay conversion therapy. Not just sit around grumbling about sexism while everything burns to the ground around you.

Are you trying to defend the Party elite so that they keep doing this shit? They all need to go. That's what we need. What is your goal here?

I think I figured it out: Tricia Romano is actually a pseudonym for Matt Baume.

Please stop thinking about this as a competition for the votes that were cast. Why didn't Hillary Clinton get 50% of available voters to turn up at the polls at all?

Elizabeth Warren would have won, vagina and unfortunate Native heritage claims and all.

Hillary wasn't "the most qualified candidate ever." She was the moderate's choice, the "don't rock the boat." candidate. Yeah, some people won't vote for a woman, the vast majority of that block won't vote for a Democrat anyway. They're really not worth bothering about.

Folks, are any of you aware that HRC got more votes than Trump?
Think about that one, geniuses.

I think the biggest problem wasn't with Hillary Clinton herself, but the cartoonish parody of her that has been created by right wing media. It bled into the mainstream, with even people on the left buying into it, to a certain extent.

But as Our Dear Not Good Red Herring Either points out, she did get more votes than Trump - by the time everything is tallied, it looks like she will get about two million votes more than he did. It's just that pesky electoral college system.

What is this "We Have Been Taught..." shit? Tricia, you do not speak for me. This statement merely serves to suggest women believe every thing they hear, do not think for themselves, and are incapable of being contrarians.

Decades of feminism, and here we have this woman claiming we just can't summon the brain cells to question authority because we just lap up every stupid thing anybody says about us.

Appalling.

@22 Hey genius, are you aware that Clinton didn't get more votes than Trump in swing states?

This is your brain on identity politics...

@15 - She had served in two separate branches of government - the legislative as a senator and the executive as Secretary of State. That's to say nothing of her time as First Lady. As a lawyer, she had a technical understanding of the law. As one of the leaders of a philanthropic organization, she's been directly combatting issues of global welfare. As a social justice advocate early in her career, she's confronted discrimination. In other words, she had a fairly comprehensive understanding of the issues facing the country internationally and domestically from multiple sides of the policy fights over them.

Obama came into office having served as a senator. Trump never held any office ever.

Were you really not aware of all that?

For all those who wrongheadedly refused to vote for Clinton because you blockheadedly termed her the "lesser of two evils..."

You helped elected more evil -- MUCH MORE EVIL -- happy now?

Everyone criticizing the author for engaging in identity politics needs to check the outcome of the election. White America overlooked a litany of lies, malfeasance and incompetence and a parade of sexist comments to elect a white dude as president.

Was misogyny the only potential reason she lost? No Does it deserve to be discussed and emphasized? Yep.

@27- And previous Presidents have been legislators, military leaders AND Governors. "hat's to say nothing of her time as First Lady." Good, because I wouldn't have a surgeon's wife do my operation. First Lady isn't a qualification, and the one major job Hillary Clinton took on as First Lady (the Clinton Health Care reform failure) was a botched job, which people do learn from sometimes but isn't proof of competence.

The "Most qualified ever" claim was on par with the "Number 1 Movie in America" claim never specifies which category it is referring to.

Nobody here has claimed Donald Trump was better qualified, the post you replied to spelled that out explicitly. Please don't bother restating it.

27

She was a mediocre one term senator
and a miserably shitty Sec of State,
she botched healthcare as First Lady,
her philanthropic activities revealed her to be a corrupt tacky money-grubber,
as a leader she has zero rapport with the common wo/man
and is stone deaf to the mood of the nation
(as her staff constantly lamented in wikileaks)
and is pathologically paranoid and secretive,
and she spent 30 years covering for and enabling one of the few public figures with a more disgusting record abusing women that Trump.

Were you really not aware of all that?

22
23

Ya'll keep bringing that up, like it matters at all….

Commentor ComItatus dear, if you are referring to the popular vote, it may not "matter" in terms of the elections, but it really does bring home the point that we need to get rid of the electoral college, don't you think?

What about Racist, avaricious, and power-hungry? ( and prone to fibbery? --- https://www.facebook.com/NeverHillary . TRAVELGATE? HONDURAS? " Can't we just drone-strike him? ( Assange) . . .--- https://www.wikileaks.org & http://www.jill2016.org ). I BLAME YOU HELLARY VOTERRS, AND TRUMP VOTERRS, FOR JILL STEIN'S DEFEAT!!! Pah!!! ( See: WE can play that game also!!! )

@27

Yes, I was aware of 'all that'.
In fact, I mentioned a few of your points myself.
She was the most qualified candidate this time, but definitely not the most qualified 'ever'.

I am also aware that past presidents, and past presidential nominees, have had more experience than Hillary Clinton.

Were you aware of that?

https://whatwouldspideydo.wordpress.com/…

"Thomas Jefferson

As author of the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Franklin’s successor as Ambassador to France, Governor of Virginia, Secretary of State and Vice-President, Thomas Jefferson is the most qualified man to ever hold the office of President. And he made sure that his good friends James Madison and James Monroe had impressive resumes when it was their turn to seek the office."

One final though:
According to the constitution, there are only three qualifications to become president: age, citizenship, and long term residency.

US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

Apparently,you can't respond to a specific comment on the site? Anyone that thinks because 53% of white women voted for drumpf that negates the sexist aspect,just doesn't get it. Secretaries in various offices in the Philadelphia suburbs were high fiving each other the day after the election ,do you think they were doing that after Romney lost? Think of crabs in a basket- when one is almost out what do the others do? They pull the one getting out back down with them. How dare she rise up in a mans world? As for she had flaws comment-JFC are you kidding ?She certainly doesn't possess the flaws he does.

This is a pathetic screed by a vengeful Clinton devotee. Clinton is none of the things her enraged devotee believes her to be. And voters' rejection of "crooked Hillary" came not for the sinister reasons she believes, but because of a reality she is unable and unwilling to comprehend. And we are not the misogynistic swine she has convinced herself we are. It is not surprising people as mean and vindictive as this person were so attracted to the Clintons. Too bad for them.

HRC's weaknesses as a candidate definitely extend beyond the email scandal, but the widespread attitude that she is "as bad as Trump" or that they're "both terrible" -- the implication being that they're *equally* terrible -- is completely irrational and rooted in misogyny.